exemption sels from of these writers seems to be founded is one which in declaring that the immunity from visit possessed by a ship of war extends itself to the vessels in her company, begs the whole question at issue.1 It is Whether more to the purpose to consider whether the privilege exempt claimed by neutrals is fairly consistent with the voyed vesinterests of belligerents, and whether it would be visit is expedient. likely in the long run to be to the advantage of neutral states themselves. It is argued that the commander of a vessel of war in charge of a convoy represents his government, that his affirmation pledges the faith of his nation, and that the belligerent has a stronger guarantee in being assured by him that the vessels in company are not engaged in any illicit traffic, than in examining for himself papers which may be fraudulent. But unless the neutral state is to exercise a minuteness of supervision over every ship issuing from her ports which would probably be impossible, and which it is not proposed to exact from her, the affirmation of the officer commanding the convoy can mean no more than that the ostensible papers of the vessels belonging to it do not show on their face any improper destination or object. Assuming that the officials at the ports of the neutral country are always able and willing to prevent any vessel laden with contraband from joining a convoy, the officer in command must still be unable to affirm of the vessels under his charge, that no one is engaged in carrying enemy's despatches or military passengers of importance; that none have an ultimate intention of breaking a blockade; or, if the belligerent nation acts on the doctrine that enemy's goods in a neutral vessel can be seized, that none of the property in course of transport in fact belongs to the enemy. 1 Ortolan, ii. 271. Formali ties of visit. If the doctrine is accepted, it would not infrequently happen that instances in which protection of a convoy has been abused will come afterwards to the knowledge of the belligerent to whose injury they have occurred; he will believe that the cases of which he knows are but a fraction of those which actually exist, he will regard the conduct of the neutral state with suspicion; complaints and misunderstandings will arise, and the existence of peace itself may be endangered. It cannot be too often repeated that the more a state places itself between the individual and the belligerent, the greater must be the number of international disputes. And belligerents will always look upon convoys with doubt, from the mere fact that their innocence cannot be tested. The neutrality of neutral nations is not always honest, and the temptation to pervert the uses of a convoy has not always been resisted; rightly or wrongly it will be thought, as it was thought in England during the French wars, that if there is any truth in the reasons stated for searching merchantmen not convoyed, it must be admitted that the presence of the convoy ship, so far from being a sufficient pledge of their innocence, is rather a circumstance of suspicion. If a neutral nation fits out ships of war, and escorts all its trading vessels with them, we have a right to conclude that she is deviating from her neutrality.'1 I can have no hesitation in thinking that the principle of the exemption of convoyed ships from visit is not included in authoritative international law, and that while its adoption into it would be injurious to belligerents, it would not be permanently to the advantage of neutrals. § 69. The exercise of the right of visit is neces 1 Lord Brougham (1807); Works, vol. viii. 388. sarily attended with formalities, the regulation of which has been attempted in a large number of treaties without any definite arrangement as to the details having received universal assent.1 Usually the visiting ship, on arriving within reasonable distance, hoists its colours and fires a gun, called the semonce or affirming gun, by which the neutral vessel is warned to bring to, but the ceremony, though customary, is not thought to be essential either in English or American practice.2 The belligerent vessel then also brings to at a distance which, in the absence of treaties, is unfixed by custom, but which has been often settled with needless precision. The natural distrust of armed vessels which was entertained, when privateers of not always irreproachable conduct were employed in every war, and when pirates were not unknown, dictated stipulations enjoining on the cruiser to remain beyond cannon shot; but the reason for so inconvenient a regulation has disappeared, and the modern treaties which repeat the provision, as well as those which permit approach to half range, are alike open to the criticism of M. Ortolan, that they have not been drawn by sailors.'8 1 The following article of the treaty of the Pyrenees (1659) has served as the model for a great number of more modern conventions: 'Les navires d'Espagne, pour éviter tout désordre, n'approcheront pas plus près les français que de la portée du canon, et pourront envoyer leur petite barque ou chaloupe à bord des navires français, et faire entrer dedans deux ou trois hommes seulement, à qui seront montrés les passeports par le maître du navire français, par lesquels il puisse apparoir, non seulement de la charge, mais N aussi du lieu de sa demeure et 3 Dip. de la Mer, ii. 256. The treaties which prescribe that a vessel shall remain beyond Evidence The visit itself is effected by sending an officer on board the merchantman, who in the first instance examines the documents by which the neutral of neutral character of the vessel is proved. According to the English practice these documents ought generally to be character. 1. The register, specifying the owner, name of ship, size, and other particulars necessary for identification. 2. The passport (sea letter) issued by the neutral state. 3. The muster roll, containing the names, &c., of the crew. 4. The log-book. 5. The charter party, or statement of the con- cannon shot are those between the 1832 (ib. Nouv. Rec. ix. 60, and ib. Nouv. Sér. ii. 442) indefinitely enjoin that the visiting ship shall remain as far as the sea will permit. 1 Modern usage allows the master of the merchantman to be summoned with his papers on board the cruiser (The Eleanor, ii Wheaton, 262), and the regulations issued by Buenos Ayres in 1817 ordered that this should always be done (iv Wheaton Append.); but Pistoye and Duverdy (i. 237) think the practice open to objections both from the point of view of the belligerent and of the neutral. The former may be easily deceived by false papers; and the latter is exposed to the less obvious risk that the documents necessary to prove the legitimacy of his adventure may be detained. 6. Invoices containing the particulars of the cargo. 7. The duplicate of the bill of lading, or ac- And the information contained in these papers is in If the inspection of the documents reveals no ground of suspicion the vessel is allowed to continue its voyage without further investigation; if otherwise, it is subjected to an examination of such minuteness as may be necessary. § 70. Capture of a vessel takes place 1. When visit and search are resisted. 2. When it is either clear, or there is fair ground Capture of resis § 71. The right of capture on the ground of resis- on ground tance to visit, and that of subsequent confiscation, flow tance, necessarily from the lawfulness of visit, and give rise to no question. If the belligerent when visiting is within the rights possessed by a state in amity with the country to which the neutral ship belongs, the neutral master is guilty of an unprovoked aggression in using force to prevent the visit from being accomplished, and the belligerent may consequently treat him as an enemy and confiscate his ship. The only point arising out of this cause of seizure by neutral; which requires to be noticed is the effect of resistance upon cargo when made by the master of the vessel, or upon vessel and cargo together, when made by the 1 Kent, Comm. Lect. vii. |
